> 100 mbit is not even enough to stream 1080p with surround hd audio
This doesn't seem right.
A 50GB blu-ray that is 2 hours long can have a maximum bitrate of 55mbit. So if your claim is correct, you'd need a 100GB blu-ray (which exists) for a 2 hour movie, which doesn't match my experience, especially for 1080p.
I bought a lot of Blu-rays (obsessed with "owning" the good movies which I then rip - I extract the original streams without reencoding and then I put the files on my mediaserver) and the biggest 1080p-file I have is the one of "Interstellar" being 39GB (original video and original 3 audio tracks and some subtitles), followed by "the dark knight rises" of 35GBs and otherwise all the rest is between 10-30GBs depending on the movie.
Usually when I play a movie in the living room I see spikes of 2.5MB/s transferred data on the mediaservers, and this is original content ripped 1:1.
thanks. There have probably been thousands of man hours spent on video compression. I used to have a 100 Mbit home network and play HD video via a OpenWrt home router with a usb disk attached to it. The HQ videos lagged when there was a lot of sound and things happening on the screen at the same time. It probably was the HDD/router capacity that was the limit though, not the network.
If you however measure the bit-rate between the computer and the monitor, it's significantly higher ... But imagine if we could stream via the Internet directly to the monitor. I'm thinking a VR headset that you just plug-in to the Ethernet socket, eg. no need to have a high end gfx computer. This would both mean cheaper/less hardware at home, and a easier business model for game developers as they wouldn't have to worry that much about people copying games.
This doesn't seem right.
A 50GB blu-ray that is 2 hours long can have a maximum bitrate of 55mbit. So if your claim is correct, you'd need a 100GB blu-ray (which exists) for a 2 hour movie, which doesn't match my experience, especially for 1080p.